Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1071, 9 May 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1882.

Much question lias been raised lately as to the well-meaning and veracity of the “ Standard.” Imputations have been scattered broadcast to the effect that our boldly-expressed views derive their origin from petty and malicious personal spite. In the interests of the public, equally with ourselves, we feel bound to give the lie direct to these imputations. We have spoken out in no hesitating or vacillating terms on public matters, and, on referring to our previous issues, we fail to recognise • —with one exception, which we shall refer to hereafter—any expressed criticism which we could wish to recall. We have attacked the actions of the Borough Council, the Trust Commissioner, the Harbor Master, and other public or official representatives, with, as far as we believe and hope, just and impartial criticism, and are fairly able to appeal to the reading public for support or condemnation of our language, on the grounds of the necessity of ventilation of public questions. Here, in the conditions of law, justice, and honor our criticism ceases. We are bound by those quoted conditions to use our best endeavors in support of them, careless of private opinion. To this end we have endeavored to work fairly, honestly, and without prejudice. The Harbor Master has stated that he believes our reference to the question of the existence of a rock in the Bay, of which he is in ignorance, to be the result of pure and petty spite. What reason he has to flatter himself to that extent we fail to see. We know nothing of Mr Chrisp ; we only recognise the Harbor Master. We have now before us a request for an explanation of statements in our late issues regarding that matter. We shall not reply to that request until the Harbor Master has had ample time to forward such explanation as will be, or possibly has been, demanded from him. There shall be no unfair play in the matter as far as we are concerned, and we are quite willing to show our hand to the Harbor Master. Two valuable steamers have struck on a dangerous rock in leaving this bay, and in the interest of life and property, whose guardians to a certain extent we may fairly assume to be, we demand that the exact position of that rock shall be made public. A man not unknown in this Bay, Ba Macky, asserts that he has sounded on a rock in 13 feet at dead low water, with deep water on each side within six feet, shewing that it must be what is known in nautical terms as a “ pinnacle ” rock, and also avers that this rock lays right in the track of vessels leaving the Bay. The Harbor Master pooh-poohs the whole matter, and says that we are prejudiced against him. We are content to leave that question to the public, after giving it a pure and simple

denial. We point out undeniable facts: The striking of the Hawea, of the Te Anau, and the evident intention of suppression of publicity in theenquiry into the latter occurrence, and distinctly say that on these evident public grounds we demand ventilation of the broad facts. If dangers exist is it right that they should be kept from general knowledge ? Is it right that valuable lives and valuable property should be exposed to risk because the Editor of a newspaper shirks his obvious duty, or a Harbor Master neglects his? Rot 1 sirs, rot! and nothing but Rot I 1 Had the Te Anau chanced to plump on that rock, instead of “bilging ” it, she must have gone down in deep water, without a chance of redemption for life or property. We can, without hesitation, appeafto public opinion as to whose duty it is to protect any vessel from a chanceoi incurring at any future time the very same danger? Let it be observed* that we distinctly state that if the Te Anau had “ plumped ” on this rock in the trough of a sea she must have gone down with all hands. Let any reasoning man look into the question and judge whether our action arises from petty spite or from public motives ? We ask for no favor, but for a just and impartial decision, which we are perfectly content to leave in the hands of the public. And now, having as the Harbor Master will probably say, expended our “ venom” on him, we shall refer to an instance previously quoted, in which we feel that an injustice has been done by us. We refer to the publication in our issue of the 15th April of a letter entitled, “ From Gisborne to Melbourne,” in which the writer, a passenger by the Hawea, criticises Captain Kennedy in what, we admit, is an unfair and objectionable manner. We are not green in matters of law, and we know that there is nothing in the article quoted which would bring us under its lash, but that very fact, in our opinion, only tend to aggravate the offence. The truth is that it was entirely the fault of the writer of this article, who should, in duty to himself, his employers, and the gentlemen who names are so freely used, Captains Kennedy and Chatfield, have cut the paragraph out of the letter, and never have allowed it to appear in the columns of the Standard. The writer thoroughly acknowledges this, and can only in requisite and honorable courtesy, say that he condemns the objectionable paragraph as unjust and uncalled for. How it slipped his notice in reading the proofs, he cannot say, but he certainly must charge it to his own (and he believes, exceptional) carelessness. Our great object in placing the Standard before our constituents is to ventilate public questions in a just and impartial manner, not to let our columns be the channel for conveyance of ill-feeling or spite, and we have no hesitation, with the tendency of the article referred to in view, in tendering our apology to Captain Kennedy and Captain Chatfield for having unwittingly, carelessly, and without any prejudice, allowed ourselves to stand in the light of sponsor to such thoroughly undeserved, and uncalled for, criticism.' As we have before said, we are not in the least afraid of the result of an action for libel in the matter, but we make the amende honorable under the old maxim of noblesse oblige, and the feeling that the fact of absence of recovery only gives a nastier colouring to a nasty matter. _______